The California legislature is expected to restore $40 million in the state budget for LGBTQ+ health programs that was cut by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Lawmakers are set to approve their revisions to the governor’s budget today, according to the Bay Area Reporter, which will restore funding for the California Department of Public Health’s Office of Health Equity (OHE). Newsom had eliminated the funds in his revised budget proposal released last month, drawing heavy condemnation from both lawmakers and LGBTQ+ groups.
The office funds several programs for LGBTQ+ youth, women, and transgender people through its Gender Health Equity Section (GHES), which is “dedicated to eliminating systemic bias that impacts health outcomes based on gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation.” In pausing funds, the governor also paused enrollment for undocumented adults in state healthcare programs.
The Los Angeles LGBT Center, which has been a recipient of some of the funds, including $1.9 million in 2022 for its Audre Lorde Health Program, sharply criticized Newsom’s proposed budget. CEO Joe Hollendoner said in a statement that the cuts were “a betrayal of queer and trans Californians.”
“Let’s be clear: balancing the state budget on the backs of vulnerable queer communities is a moral failure,” he said. “In cutting this funding, Governor Newsom has chosen to sacrifice the health and dignity of those already navigating intersecting barriers of misogyny, racism, transphobia, and xenophobia — including undocumented LGBTQ+ people. These cuts, along with the pausing of enrollment for adult undocumented Californians, are a clear attack on our healthcare system and the people who depend on it.”
The governor must still approve the legislature’s revisions to the state budget, which has has until June 30 to sign into law. Newsom, who is set to negotiate with lawmakers over the next few days, has not indicated whether or not he will agree to leave the funds.
While largely avoiding the same level of heated pushback of years’ past, Texas lawmakers passed several bills that give LGBTQ+ people in Texas, specifically transgender residents, less opportunity to receive care and maintain their identities in state records.
Texas legislators filed over 100 anti-trans bills through the session, some containing provisions that have been shot down in years’ prior while others proposed new restrictions. Less than 10 were ultimately approved by lawmakers.
The new bills that are likely to be signed by Gov. Greg Abbott represent a yearslong movement from state conservatives to find new ways to restrict the presence of trans and LGBTQ+ Texans, advocates say. The bills that failed may also be resurrected by lawmakers in future sessions. Here’s what to know.
State definitions of man and woman
Several bills filed in the Legislature aimed to craft legal definitions of sex and gender in addition to their target goals — but House Bill 229 makes that goal its sole purpose, establishing state definitions for male and female and applying those definitions across statute.
HB 229 defines a woman as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and a man as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”
Most immediately, the bill will bolster an already existing block from stateagencies on changes to gender markers on state documents, which was backed by a nonbinding opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton in March. The bill may also force those who have already switched their documents to match their identified gender to have changes reverted when they are renewed.
The longer-term effects of HB 229 are still not immediately apparent, as references to man and woman are used hundreds of times in statute and may ripple into other laws affecting people’s lives. Texas joins 13 other states that have also crafted their own definitions, and several other bills that also passed in the state have individual definitions for related terms like “biological sex.”
President Donald Trump issued an executive order named “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism” in January providing federal definitions of male and female. Similarly, HB 229 has been dubbed the “Women’s Bill of Rights” by supporters, claiming it protects women in the state from men invading their spaces.
Abbott released an executive order of his own shortly after Trump’s affirming the president’s directive, but did not provide his own definitions. In a May post on social media, the governor said he would immediately sign HB 229 into law.
New requirements for medical records and insurance coverage
Tightening the ability to change the gender on state records like drivers’ licenses has been a key issue for conservative lawmakers for years, and while HB 229 sets a precedent in disallowing new changes, another bill creates new requirements entirely. Senate Bill 1188 creates a new section on all state medical records listing patients’ assigned sex at birth and any physical sexual development disorders. It also bans changes to those gender markers for any reason other than clerical errors, and creates civil penalties for medical professionals who do change them.
House Democrats opposing the measure during floor discussion worried that SB 1188 may scare medical providers into inputting vague or inaccurate health information out of fear of fiscal or legal retribution. The bill does allow the new section to include information on a patients’ gender identity, however health care services must opt-in to provide it.
The bill also creates restrictions on where health care providers can store patient data and the physical servers they use to store them, and new regulations on how artificial intelligence can be used to create diagnoses.
SB 1188 is not the only bill opponents have said will create a chilling effect on the LGBTQ+ community. Some bills may be more immediate in blocking options people have to do things like change their state records, but others like SB 1188 and Senate Bill 1257 may reduce what resources are available. SB 1257 was signed by Abbott in May and mandates that insurance companies provide coverage for gender detransitioning care if they already cover gender transition care.
Proponents of the law claim it enforces responsibility onto insurance companies. The law is not a ban on gender-affirming care, however opponents worry it may act as one by incentivizing insurance companies to pull coverage altogether rather than take on potential new costs.
SB 1257 is the first legal mandate for detransition care in the United States, making Texas a testing ground for insurance companies’ appetite to keep or pull coverage. Similar bills in Arizona, Florida and Tennessee did not pass out of their respective state legislatures in 2024.
Less protections and resources for LGBTQ+ youth
Medical gender transition care for minors was banned in Texas by the Legislature in 2023, a restriction that was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2024. House Bill 18, primarily an overhaul of rural health care including a rural pediatric mental health care program, bans minors from accessing its resources for gender-affirming mental health counseling “inconsistent with the child’s biological sex.”
The current gender transition care ban for minors does not include mental health services, only puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery, which is rare for those under 18. Another proposal headed to Abbott’s desk, House Bill 1106, asserts that parents who do not recognize or affirm their child’s gender identity cannot be held liable for abuse or neglect because of that lack of recognition.
More restrictions on LGBTQ+ presence in schools
Access to materials and resources related to LGBTQ+ subjects are also being restricted by legislators through two key bills primarily aimed at schools. Senate Bill 12 bans Texas schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity and forbids student clubs “based on” those subjects.
The bill would prevent clubs like Gay-Straight Alliances and pride clubs, which are often tailored toward anti-bullying initiatives in schools. Opponents of the bill claim a ban on those clubs would cut off LGBTQ+ students from communities and resources that can save lives.
“One of the deadliest things that our youth go through is experiencing the perception at least of isolation, and GSAs are a powerful way that we can combat that and make sure that our youth are getting support,” said Ash Hall, ACLU Texas’ policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights.
While SB 12 restricts instruction and student groups, Senate Bill 13 gives school boards and new advisory councils greater oversight to remove books from school libraries that go against “local community values.” Some lawmakers and advocates worry school boards and advisory councils would be able to restrict books containing LGBTQ+ material.
A third bill, Senate Bill 18, would have banned “drag-time story hours” at municipal libraries and cut funding to those who host them, however that bill was unintentionally killed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick after a procedural error at the end of the Senate’s deadline to pass bills.
Bills that failed to pass
The small set of bills passed by legislators shift the state’s treatment of LGBTQ+ Texans significantly, but still represent a fraction of what lawmakers proposed. House Bill 239, this session’s bathroom ban bill, was one of the over 100 bills that did not survive and was never heard by lawmakers despite half of the House signing on as coauthors. House Bill 2704 sought a similar ban through private lawsuits rather than criminal charges, but was never picked up by lawmakers.
Also left unheard was House Bill 3817, filed by Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, which would have created a new felony charge for “gender identity fraud” if a person represented themselves as a gender besides the one they were assigned at birth to state agencies or employers.
Advocates like Johnathan Gooch, communications director for Equality Texas, say that the Legislature has kept its course on anti-trans legislation for the last few sessions, and that bills that didn’t get picked up by legislators may be at the forefront of future sessions.
“We’re hearing rhetoric that we’ve heard for a very long time and just more, more bills, a variety of new ways to narrow the rights of trans people,” Gooch said. “It just doesn’t come as a mistake that the number of bills is escalating.”
Citing President Trump’s threat to cut off federal education funding for school districts that provide protections for LGBTQ people, school board members in the Montezuma-Cortez district in southwestern Colorado are poised to remove sexual orientation and gender identity from the district’s nondiscrimination policy.
“Our district uses federal grant monies and Trump has indicated those grants are at risk if any district continues to support certain previously protected classes like sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity,” Mike Lynch, a school board member and the policy committee chair, said at a board meeting late last month.
The proposed policy changes in Montezuma-Cortez represent just one example of how some Colorado school districts are rushing to comply — or over-comply — with federal ultimatums based on questionable legal foundations. Many legal experts say the Trump administration cannot, on its own, exclude transgender people from federal anti-discrimination law and that Colorado law, which includes protections for LGBTQ people, supersedes school district policy anyway.
But efforts to remove protections at the local level send harmful messages about who is valued and who isn’t, they say.
“I think it does damage to queer students because it signals that this school district … doesn’t believe that these students are worthy of protection,” Scott Skinner-Thompson, associate professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Montezuma-Cortez, a conservative-leaning district with about 2,400 students, has taken other steps to curtail LGBTQ symbols and school activities in recent years. The school board is scheduled to take a final vote on the proposed nondiscrimination policy on June 24.
MB McAfee, a retired social worker and district resident, said she doesn’t know of any case where federal funds were withheld by the Trump administration, but worries about that possibility, particularly when it comes to money for students with disabilities.
But she’s also angry about the proposed policy changes, calling them “another step toward exclusion.”
“If we do that,” she asked, “then what’s going to be next?”
School districts react to funding threats
Trump has targeted transgender rights since his first day in office. In January and February, he issued several executive orders on the topic, including one that describes sex as determined at conception and unchangeable and another that threatens to withhold federal funds from schools that allow transgender girls to play girls sports.
The Trump administration has moved to strip federal funding from Maine because that state allows transgender girls to compete on girls’ teams. A judge blocked the federal government from withholding school lunch money while the case continues.
So far, no school district has lost money because of policies protecting transgender students. But Lynch emphasized that risk when he explained the proposed policy revision to the school board in May.
Asked by Chalkbeat what executive order or federal guidance required the removal of “sexual orientation” from the policy, Lynch later said by email that he’d mistakenly cited the term when he spoke to the board about federal dollars being in jeopardy.
For now though, “sexual orientation” isn’t being restored to the policy, he said.
Montezuma-Cortez isn’t alone in making changes spurred by the Trump administration. Officials from several Colorado districts, including Woodland Park and District 49 near Colorado Springs, have cited Trump’s executive orders in pushing policy changes or other efforts aimed at revoking protections for transgender students.
In May, District 49 sued the state and the Colorado High School Activities Association arguing that Colorado law and the association’s policy violate students’ constitutional rights by allowing transgender youth to play on school sports teams that match their gender identity.
Montezuma-Cortez school board members had little to say about the implications of the proposed nondiscrimination policy changes.
Asked about the legal or practical implications, Lynch said he’s not an attorney and doesn’t know. School board President Sheri Noyes did not respond to Chalkbeat’s request for comment. Vice President Ed Rice declined to respond to specific questions from Chalkbeat, saying by email that the policy’s opening sentence “answers everything.”
As proposed, that sentence says, “The Board is committed to providing a learning and work environment where all members of the school community are treated with dignity and respect.” The current version of the policy says “safe learning and work environment” but the revision takes out the word “safe.”
The Trump administration has closed Dupont Circle Park for the peak weekend of WorldPride in Washington, D.C., fencing off a landmark deeply tied to LGBTQ+ history despite objections from local officials and organizers.
The National Park Service and U.S. Park Police barricaded the park Thursday evening. The closure, which extends through Sunday night, includes the central fountain, grassy areas, and sidewalks within the circle but excludes the surrounding streets, according to Washington’s NBC affiliate, WRC.
Earlier this week, D.C. Councilmembers Brooke Pinto and Zachary Parker announced that the Metropolitan Police Department had withdrawn its request to close the park following backlash from community members. But federal officials proceeded with the shutdown anyway and have not responded to requests for comment.
“I am extremely disappointed and frustrated that Dupont Circle Park will be closed this weekend despite MPD’s commitment to keep folks safe there,” Pinto said in a statement to The Advocate. “This closure is disheartening to me and so many in our community who wanted to celebrate World Pride at this iconic symbol of our city’s historic LGBTQ+ community. I wish I had better news to share.”
According to a June 4 Record of Determination obtained byThe Washington Post, the National Park Service said that the closure was necessary “to secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presence.”
Despite MPD’s reversal, the U.S. Park Police doubled down. In a memo to NPS Superintendent Kevin Greiss, USPP Commander Major Frank Hilsher wrote that “the threat of violence, criminal acts, and NPS resource destruction has only increased since MPD’s original April 22, 2025, park closure request.” He referenced a local DJ advertising an unpermitted party at Dupont Circle and said, “Less restrictive measures will not suffice.”
The Capital Pride Alliance, which is organizing WorldPride events, told The Advocate it was not consulted about the decision.
“This beloved landmark is central to the community that WorldPride intends to celebrate and honor,” the group said in a statement. “It’s much more than a park — for generations, it’s been a gathering place for D.C.’s LGBTQ+ community, hosting First Amendment assemblies and memorial services for those we lost to the AIDS epidemic and following tragic events like the Pulse nightclub shooting.”
“This sudden move was made overnight without consultation with the Capital Pride Alliance or other local officials,” the statement continued. “No official WorldPride activities have been planned in Dupont Circle this weekend; thus, no events will be impacted.”
While MPD had initially requested the closure, Chief Pamela Smith rescinded that request in a formal letter sent Tuesday. When asked for comment Friday, MPD spokesperson Tom Lynch told The Advocate, “We have nothing to share beyond the letter rescinding the request, which we shared on Tuesday.”
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser did not respond to The Advocate’s questions, but a spokesperson pointed to an appearance she made on local radio Friday in which she discussed the fencing.
She said the closure represented a breakdown in coordination between federal and local authorities. “I think I put this in the category of an unfortunate error,” Bowser told The Politics Hour With Kojo Nnamdi on WAMU. “We had a communication with the Park Service … and it looks like at this stage, they’re going to proceed with the closure, though we continue talks.”
Pressed on whether the decision originated at the White House or with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Bowser said, “I can’t say that with any clarity. I do know, unfortunately, the public safety issue rose to the top over the cultural celebration.” She added, “We don’t control the NPS, though we will continue to try to lean on them for a different decision.”
The Park Service has cited past incidents (none of which were linked to Capital Pride Alliance events), including $175,000 in damage to the fountain during Pride 2023, as well as a recent executive order from President Donald Trump instructing federal agencies to protect national monuments and public spaces. But LGBTQ+ advocates say the move appears politically motivated.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund filed Freedom of Information Act requests this week seeking communications and records from the Department of the Interior, the MPD, and the D.C. Mayor’s Office. In a statement Tuesday, Executive Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard called the decision “a dangerous step and outside the legitimate authority of the Park Service.” Staff attorney Sarah Taitz said, “The LGBTQ+ community and general public deserve to know how and why the decision to shut Pride out of Dupont Circle was made, and how and why that decision was reversed.”
Though no official events were scheduled at the park, many saw its closure as symbolic — a federal message during a global celebration of queer life.
“World Pride will continue this weekend,” Pinto said, “and it will be a time of celebration and commitment to uplift our LGBTQ+ neighbors.”
*This is reported by Reuters. For corresponding graphs, check their original article.
As global investors consider reducing their exposure to U.S. financial assets, the key question is where money flowing out of the U.S. will go. While Europe may be the obvious destination, relative value metrics may favour emerging Asia.
Even though U.S. equities have recovered from the steep losses suffered in the week following U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement of his ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs, the same cannot be said of the U.S. bond market. Since hitting a recent low on April 4, the 10-year Treasury yield has spiked by around 50 basis points, with bond investors demanding more compensation for the risk of holding longer-dated U.S. debt. Worryingly, the benchmark Treasury yield has surged higher than nominal U.S. GDP growth – a key risk measure.
Additionally, the usual positive correlation between Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar has broken off, as rising yields are no longer attracting money to the “safest” asset in the world. Broad-based depreciation of the greenback suggests that – despite the equity rebound – many U.S. assets are being sold and the funds are flowing into markets whose currencies are appreciating.
EUROPEAN ALTERNATIVE
The euro’s almost 10% rise against the dollar this year suggests that a significant portion of the capital flowing out of the U.S. is going to Europe, likely driven both by concerns about U.S. policy as well as expectations of higher regional growth.
Further monetary easing by the European Central Bank should promote economic activity, as should the expected surge in fiscal spending following Germany’s recent constitutional reform, opens new tab, which approved partial removal of the “debt brake” for infrastructure and defence spending.
The fiscal splurge is already offering a boost to European equities – the surprise winner thus far in 2025 – especially defence, industrial and technology stocks.
DEBT WOES
But there are reasons to question the new ‘European exceptionalism’ narrative.
One likely cause of investors’ growing apprehension with U.S. assets is the Trump administration’s apparent inability to narrow the country’s gaping fiscal deficit or reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio, which has risen to more than 120%.
But elevated debt metrics are also an issue across the pond, as they are found in Italy (135% of GDP), France (113%) and the UK (96%). Importantly, both Italy and France have seen their 10-year bond yields rise above their nominal GDP growth rates.
While the latter metric is also true of Germany, the country’s debt load is modest at only 62% of GDP, so the statistic mostly reflects a stagnating economy that’s about to get a spending boost.
Fiscal expansion in Europe will likely continue to benefit the region’s equities, but whether it is good news for fixed income investment there is still an open question.
ASIAN OPTION
Meanwhile, in emerging Asia – another potential destination for U.S. capital outflows – the debt picture is better and the growth outlook is stronger.
Government debt in many Asian countries is low, ranging from 37% of GDP in Indonesia to around 85% in China and India.
Benchmark bond yields across the region have been declining since October 2023, speaking to fixed income investors’ limited concerns about Asian countries’ fiscal situations. In fact, yields in China, Thailand and Korea are all below those in the U.S., though those in Indonesia and India remain higher.
Modest debt burdens mean there is also plenty of room for more fiscal stimulus in many countries, which could improve consumption, while the benign inflation environment should enable central banks in the region to continue cutting rates to stimulate growth.
Emerging Asia also offers far more high-growth, technology companies than Europe. The release of the affordable Chinese artificial intelligence model, DeepSeek, Beijing’s focus on semiconductors and advanced manufacturing and the country’s electric vehicle dominance could all attract tech-focused investors looking for an alternative to the U.S..
RELATIVE VALUE
Even though European equities have outperformed their U.S. counterparts significantly in 2025, the twelve-month forward price-to-earnings multiple of the major European index, the STOXX50, is considerably lower than that of the S&P 500, at 15.4x and 21.0x, respectively, as of May 23. But the major emerging Asia equity index, the MSCI Asia ex Japan, is even cheaper at 13.4x.
Moreover, earnings growth forecasts are higher in Asia than in either the U.S. or Europe through 2026.
Finally, reallocation of assets from the U.S. could potentially have a bigger positive impact on Asia than on Europe because of their relative sizes. Let’s say 5% of the U.S. free floating market cap of around $58 trillion, or roughly $3 trillion, moves out. That would represent 36% of Asia’s market cap, but only 22% of Europe’s.
NO SLAM DUNK
Caution remains warranted, though. Asian nations’ ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S. will likely still encounter numerous twists and turns, and increasing protectionism could hinder the region’s more export-oriented economies. Moreover, Chinese economic growth remains tepid despite the monetary and fiscal stimulus delivered over the past eight months.
Finally, the capital flowing into emerging Asia is a double-edged sword because of the impact on Asian currencies versus the U.S. dollar. If Asian currencies strengthen much more, the region’s export engine could stutter.
Investors, thus, have to keep a close eye on macroeconomics, geopolitics and policy statements, not just valuation metrics.
But given emerging Asia’s benign debt environment and positive growth outlook, both the region’s equity and fixed income markets have the potential to benefit from the death of American exceptionalism.
(The views expressed here are those of Manishi Raychaudhuri, the founder and CEO of Emmer Capital Partners Ltd and the former Head of Asia-Pacific Equity Research at BNP Paribas Securities).
In less than 24 hours, the National Park Service (NPS) has rescinded its decision to close off Dupont Circle Park in Washington D.C. for WorldPride, citing “significant” damage to the park’s fountain during a previous pride event, costing nearly $200 thousand. The rescinding of their decision followed pushback from LGBTQ+ community leaders and advocates, as the area is a vibrant gathering place for queer people with many nearby LGBTQ+-owned shops and gay bars.
On Monday, the NPS announced that, “at the request of the [local] Metropolitan Police Department,” they would be closing off Dupont Circle Park for the final weekend of WorldPride 2025 to prevent “disorderly and destructive behavior” from WorldPride participants. The closure was set to occur from Thursday, June 5 to Monday, June 9, as a public safety measure and to protect park resources, the NPS’ statement added.
“This decision was based on a history and pattern of destructive and disorderly behavior from unpermitted activities happening in the park during past DC Pride weekends, including vaŋdalism in 2023 that resulted in approximately $175,000 in damage to the historic Dupont Circle fountain,” the statement claimed.
Indeed, $175,000 is a substantial amount of money, but it is unclear how they arrived at this figure. Despite $175,000 in damages to public property being a newsworthy story in itself, there is little to no reporting to suggest the fountain sustained critical damage during a Pride event in 2023. The event they are likely referencing was The Capital Pride Parade and Block Party in 2023. Most news coverage on the event paints it as a mainly peaceful event with no significant rioting having occurred.
It is worth noting that the fountain had been undergoing numerous repairs at the time, including waterproofing at the base, upgrades to the water pump system, and pressure testing for the pipes.
During the initial decision to close the park, reporters from The Washington Bladeattempted to reach out to a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police Department concerning the decision, but the spokesperson declined to comment and referred them to the NPS. Additionally, the office of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser also declined to comment.
“We have nothing else to add to the National Park Service statement at this time,” mayoral spokesperson Daniel Gleick told reporters.
In less than 24 hours after the announcement, the NPS rescinded their decision to close off the park this morning, according to D.C. Council member Zachary Parker.
In the moments leading up to NPS changing its mind, local LGBTQ+ rights activists condemned the agency for blocking off a major historic community within the LGBTQ+ movement.
Jeffrey Ruegauer, a member of the Dupont Circle Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC), in a public meeting, proclaimed, “The circle belongs to everyone, it is the city’s town square. It is intimately linked with the gay community and the gay rights movement and so many other rights movements over the years,” The Washington Post reported.
Fellow ANC commissioner and official with D.C.’s Rainbow History Project told the aforementioned publication, “The community should be as outraged as I am.”
Ryan Bos, executive director of Capital Pride Alliance, the organization behind D.C.’s annual Pride events and that also helped organize this year’s WorldPride events, said no official WorldPride events were set to occur at Dupont Circle Park during the upcoming weekend, though he was unsure if independent individuals or groups had planned any events there.
Bos also said he felt certain that participants of Capital Pride events did not cause any damage to the park in past years.
In February, NPS removed all mentions of transgender people from its website for Dupont Circle to comply with the president’s executive orders prohibiting any federal recognition of trans people in any aspect of civic life.
They stood in formation at Falcon Stadium, diplomas in hand, having met every standard of physical endurance, academic excellence, and military discipline. But, on Thursday, when the time came for the U.S. Air Force Academy’s class of 2025 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to commission as second lieutenants, three cadets were quietly held back.
They are the first out transgender cadets to graduate from the Academy. And under a newly reinstated Trump administration ban, they will not be allowed to serve.
One of them, Hunter Marquez, had spent years preparing to become a combat systems officer. He earned dual degrees in aeronautical engineering and applied mathematics. He passed the Air Force’s fitness standards for men. And he did so as himself, having transitioned while enrolled at the Academy. “I really want to stay in for as long as possible, fight this out,” Marquez toldThe Colorado Springs Gazette.
But the rules changed. On May 6, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to begin enforcing Executive Order 14183, which bans transgender people from military service. The unsigned order—issued without full argument and over the dissent of the Court’s three liberal justices—overturned a Washington state lower court’s preliminary injunction and gave the Pentagon the green light to begin separations.
Marquez, along with the two other graduates, was placed on administrative absence, barred from taking the oath, and warned he might need to repay the cost of his education if he refused to leave voluntarily, the paper reports. That education—funded by taxpayers—is valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to The Gazette, Marquez was later told by Air Force officials that if he is involuntarily separated, he won’t be billed. But the message was clear: his government does not want him in uniform.
And yet, there is no question he met the standard. “We want warfighters. We want people with grit, that are resilient. They have done all that,” a U.S. Air Force Academy staff member told The Gazette, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation. All three cadets passed physical fitness tests for both men and women. All three graduated with distinction.
What disqualifies them is not their performance but their identity.
Marquez is a plaintiff in Talbott v. United States, one of the central legal challenges to the policy. In a sworn statement, he wrote that the executive order describes people like him as “undisciplined,selfish, and dishonest.” “None of those are correct descriptions of my character or my abilities,” he wrote. “I have achieved alongside my peers throughout my time at the Academy.”
The policy is not theoretical. It is personal. It has required cadets like Marquez to trek across dorms to find gender-compliant restrooms and showers. It has forced them to race through final semesters in case they’re expelled before graduating. And it has turned what should have been a joyful week of ceremonies into a lesson in resilience.
Marquez, now 23, is applying to the University of Colorado Boulder to earn an advanced degree in aerospace engineering. He is still receiving medical benefits and cadet pay, but he knows that may be temporary. “There’s still a lot of anger and frustration and sadness,” he said. “Just because I have worked so hard to be a second lieutenant in the Air Force, and at the very end that was taken from me.”
Academy alumni have responded with solidarity. Nearly 1,000 graduates have signed an open letter defending transgender cadets and midshipmen. “Being transgender is in no way incompatible with any of our Academies’ cherished virtues and values,” the letter reads, according to Military.com.
Puerto Rico’s Supreme Court has mandated that the government include an “X” gender marker on birth certificates in a ruling issued on Monday. A group of nonbinary Puerto Ricans filed the case, and the ruling allows for the representation of those who identify outside of the gender binary.
“Puerto Rico’s current Birth Certificate Policy is not supported by a rational basis, and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the justices wrote in their 19-page decision.
The court found that while the government might have a legitimate interest in maintaining an accurate record of each citizen’s sex assigned at birth, lawyers for the government “failed to articulate why this particular interest is furthered by treating nonbinary individuals differently than binary individuals.”
Puerto Rico’s Supreme Court has mandated that the government include an “X” gender marker on birth certificates in a ruling issued on Monday. A group of nonbinary Puerto Ricans filed the case, and the ruling allows for the representation of those who identify outside of the gender binary.
“Puerto Rico’s current Birth Certificate Policy is not supported by a rational basis, and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the justices wrote in their 19-page decision.
The court found that while the government might have a legitimate interest in maintaining an accurate record of each citizen’s sex assigned at birth, lawyers for the government “failed to articulate why this particular interest is furthered by treating nonbinary individuals differently than binary individuals.”
A federal court in 2018 ordered Puerto Rico to permit transgender individuals to change their gender markers, but nonbinary individuals were left unable to accurately reflect their gender identity on official records. Six nonbinary plaintiffs filed suit in court, and the court on Monday ruled in their favor.
Puerto Rico’s Supreme Court has mandated that the government include an “X” gender marker on birth certificates in a ruling issued on Monday. A group of nonbinary Puerto Ricans filed the case, and the ruling allows for the representation of those who identify outside of the gender binary.
“Puerto Rico’s current Birth Certificate Policy is not supported by a rational basis, and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the justices wrote in their 19-page decision.
The court found that while the government might have a legitimate interest in maintaining an accurate record of each citizen’s sex assigned at birth, lawyers for the government “failed to articulate why this particular interest is furthered by treating nonbinary individuals differently than binary individuals.”
A federal court in 2018 ordered Puerto Rico to permit transgender individuals to change their gender markers, but nonbinary individuals were left unable to accurately reflect their gender identity on official records. Six nonbinary plaintiffs filed suit in court, and the court on Monday ruled in their favor.
“Their request is simple: to be permitted to have a gender marker on their birth certificate that reflects their true gender identity, like everyone else,” the justices wrote of the plaintiffs in their decision. “Specifically, Plaintiffs request the Court to order the Demographic Registry of Puerto Rico to modify its application to amend a Puerto Rican birth certificate, to include an option to change one’s gender marker to an ‘X.’”
The justices found the government’s current birth certificate gender identification policy discriminatory and that there was no rational reason to deny the plaintiff’s request.
“The current Birth Certificate Policy of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico arbitrarily distinguishes between binary and nonbinary individuals and subjects nonbinary individuals to disfavored treatment, without any justification for doing so,” the justices concluded in their ruling. “In such cases, it is the duty of the federal courts to intervene, to guarantee the equal protection of all persons under the law.”
Puerto Rico’s Republican Governor Jenniffer González Colón indicated that she would consult with government lawyers before determining her future course of action.
Puerto Rico Representative Jorge “Georgie” Navarro Suárez announced he was introducing a non-binding resolution condemning the ruling.
“The Federal Court’s ruling represents a challenge to the administrative and social stability of Puerto Rico,” Navarro Suárez said in a statement announcing the resolution. “While we fully respect human dignity and rights, we firmly believe that traditional gender identification based on male and female provides essential clarity and consistency in the administrative processes of the Demographic Registry.”
Navarro Suárez is a member of the New Progressive Party (PNP), which advocates for statehood with the U.S. Both of Navarro Suárez’s brothers were recently arrested on federal corruption charges. Edgardo Navarro Suárez and Ricardo Luis Suárez were arrested in April and charged with financial fraud and money laundering of federal funds meant for relief during the global economic shutdown. Prosecutors claim the two brothers and a third man attempted to bribe a bank official to help facilitate over $2 million in allegedly bogus COVID-19 relief funds.
As Oklahoman legislators push to restrict trans rights and overturn the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage, Zane Eaves says his identity as a transgender man has put a target on his back in his home state.
One of 18,900 trans adults in Oklahoma, Eaves has received death threats as has his wife of 10 years and their two children.
“All the hatred and political stuff going on” are driving this Oklahoma lifer from the place he was born and raised, Eaves, 35, said. He has only crossed the state line three times in his life, but in recent weeks, he made the difficult decision to move his family to North Carolina to be closer to friends and allies.
“I am just trying to stay alive and keep my marriage,” Eaves said.
Oklahoma ranks 44th in the nation on a list released Monday of the most and least welcoming states for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer Americans.
LGBTQ+ equality fell across the board for the third straight year, according to Out Leadership’s State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index shared exclusively with USA TODAY. But the sharpest declines came in Republican-led states.
While progressive strongholds championed supportive policies and protections, conservative states elected a slate of leaders who openly oppose gay and trans rights and sponsored an unprecedented wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, Out Leadership CEO and founder Todd Sears said.
So-called “Don’t Say Gay” bills, religious exemptions and other legislation tanked the rankings of 19 red states in the Out Leadership index, according to Sears.
Today, the divide between states that roll out the welcome mat and less hospitable parts of the country is wider than ever, he said.
The least and most welcoming LGBTQ+ states
Each year for the last seven, Out Leadership has released the State LGBTQ+ Business Climate Index to gauge the overall climate for gay and transgender people state by state, mapping out where they will face the most and the least discrimination and hardship.
Out Leadership’s index measures the impact of state government policies and prevalent attitudes about the LGBTQ+ community, weighing factors such as support for young people and families, health access and safety, political and religious attitudes, work environment and employment and nondiscrimination protections.
The Northeast had six of the 10 highest-ranked states, while the Southeast had six of the lowest-ranked.
Massachusetts, led by the nation’s first openly lesbian governor, Democrat Maura Healey and New York, which guaranteed gender-affirming care and LGBTQ+ refugee protections, tied for first place in this year’s index, with Connecticut and New Jersey close behind.
The least LGBTQ+ friendly state was Arkansas, which ranked last for the third straight year. South Carolina, Louisiana, South Dakota and Alabama also received low scores.
The states that had the largest gains in the index were Kentucky and Michigan, which Out Leadership attributed to “pro-equality” leadership from governors Andy Beshear and Gretchen Whitmer, both Democrats. The steepest declines were in Ohio, Florida and Utah, all led by Republican governors.
Where are the safest places to live?
The Out Leadership index was created as a LGBTQ+ inclusion reference guide for business leaders. But gay and trans people soon began using it to figure out where they should – and should not – live and work, never more so than now as rights rollbacks from the Trump administration and red statehouses hit close to home.
Opposition to transgender rights was a central plank in Trump’s presidential campaign and since taking office he has signed a series of executive orders recognizing only male and female genders, keeping trans athletes out of women’s sports, banning trans people from serving in the military and restricting federal funding for gender-affirming care for trans people under age 19.
Even states seen as safer for LGBTQ+ people have been navigating these edicts around trans athletes. Trump threatened to cut federal funding to California if a trans girl competed in a state track and field event held Saturday.
AB Hernandez, a junior from Jurupa Valley High School in Riverside County, shared first place in the high jump and triple jump and second in the long jump. She shared the awards podium with her cisgender competitors under a new rule drafted by state athletics officials days before the event to mollify critics.
Republican-led states have been in the vanguard of anti-trans legislation, causing greater geographic polarization and prompting fears among LGBTQ+ residents, even those who live in liberal cities.
Jordan McGuire, a 27-year-old gay man in North Dakota, said the years he spent living in the Deep South taught him about the repressive discrimination routinely faced by gay and genderqueer people.
At the same time, socially progressive cities in conservative states like Fargo and Grand Forks are no longer the safe havens they once were, he said.
Now that his fiancee is transitioning to female, the couple is exploring a move to a “sanctuary” state that will be safer for them.
“It feels like five or 10 years ago, trans people were not under the same microscope they are now and that has definitely influenced our move,” McGuire said. “Yeah, people were prejudiced but it wasn’t a witch hunt. They weren’t looking for people in bathrooms and schools. But now things are so polarized.”
That rising anxiety was captured in a post-election survey from UCLA’s Williams Institute which found that nearly half of transgender people had already fled unsupportive communities and nearly 1 in 4 were considering uprooting their lives.
The most frequently cited reasons for wanting to move were concerns about LGBTQ+ rights – 76% – the sociopolitical climate – 71% – anti-trans rhetoric and climate – 60% – and anti-trans laws and policies – 47%.
LGBTQ+ Americans on the move
Interest in relocating to friendlier states is even higher today than it was after Trump’s reelection, say nonprofit workers who aid trans and gender-diverse people relocate to more liberal states with broader protections.
So far in 2025, Rainbow Railroad in Canada has received more than 3,000 requests from LGBTQ+ people living in the United States, up more than 1,000% from the same time last year, according to communications director Timothy Chan.
Nearly all requested international relocation support. For now, Rainbow Railroad can’t aid Americans with resettlement services because of immigration restrictions, Chan said.
TRACTION has heard from a record number of people from states as far away as Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas with many of them reporting being threatened or feeling unsafe in their homes and neighborhoods, said Michael Woodward, the executive director of the trans-led organization in Washington state.
Trans and gender-diverse people historically face financial hardship due to systemic oppression and discrimination, and need assistance finding jobs and housing as well as with interstate moving expenses that can run tens of thousands, Woodward said.
TRACTION used to get a few applications a week until Trump won a second term. In the two weeks following the election, “we received as many requests for assistance as we’d received in the entire life of the project thus far,” he said.
After the inauguration, TRACTION started getting three to five applications every day. With one employee and a handful of volunteers, his organization is struggling to keep up with demand, Woodward said.
*This is reported by WSMV 4. We have removed the repeated misuse of the word “allegedly” from the story.
A Nashville moving company has confirmed to WSMV4 that it has terminated one of its employees after a recent attack against a transgender woman.
Black Tie Moving released a statement on Monday confirming the employee’s termination and condemning the assault.
“We were made aware of an incident that took place over the weekend at a storage facility in Nashville, TN, involving one of our employees and another individual, a member of the LGBTQ+ community,” Black Tie Moving said. “Security footage captures a physical altercation that is deeply troubling and entirely unacceptable.”
Black Tie Moving added that the employee was immediately terminated and the company is fully cooperating with the Metro Nashville Police Department’s investigation into the incident.
Following the incident, MNPD confirmed that its Specialized Division is investigating the attack at the Extra Space Storage facility on Charlotte Avenue on Friday.
Extra Space Storage confirmed to WSMV4 that it’s turned over the security camera footage of the incident to police for the Specialized Division’s investigation.
“While the property has security features like video surveillance, cylinder locks, and coded doors and gates, we do not have on-site security. At the time, the store was staffed by a single employee,” the facility told WSMV4.
The victim also made the following post about the assault:
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.